Satyam Kumar Vs the Union of India Represented by the Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central ) , Hazaribagh

¶1

(2026:JHHC:9485)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 770 of 2026

¶3

Satyam Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Krishnakant Sharma, resident of 1 A, 03, R. K. Enclave, Anand Gram, North Morabadi, PO – G.P.O., PS – Gonda, District – Ranchi. … … …Petitioner

¶4

Versus Union of India represented by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hazaribagh, Qtr. No. F-5 “A” & F-“C”, DVC Colony, Near DVC Chowk, Hazaribagh, PO & PS – Hazaribagh, District – Hazaribagh – 825301 (Jharkhand). … … …Opp. Party

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate For the State : Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Addl. P.P.

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶9

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.11.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 3238 of 2023 by the learned C.J.M. I/C, Giridih, whereby and whereunder the learned C.J.M. I/C, Giridih has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act.

¶10

3. The allegation against the State Bank of India who is stated to have been represented by the petitioner being Chief Manager, is that it has

¶11

¶12

Cr.M.P. No. 770 of 2026

¶13

(2026:JHHC:9485)

¶14

contravened Rule 4(C) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; as it failed to maintain the register showing payment of bonus to the employees in Form – “C” and also failed to upload a Unified Annual Return in form – “D” on the web portal of Ministry of Labour & Employment on or before the 1^st day of February following the close of the year, to which it relates. On the basis of the complaint submitted by Complainant – Union of India represented through the Enforcement Officer (Central), Hazaribagh, the learned C.J.M., I/C has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dayle De’ Souza Vs. Government of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) & Another reported in (2021) 20 SCC 135 submitted that in the facts of that case the pari materia provision of section 29 of the Payment of Bonus Act, that is Section 22(C) of the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by relying upon the principles of law settled in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89 and Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 and also Girdhari Lal Gupta Vs. D.H. Mehta reported in (1971) 3 SCC 189 & Other cases , observed in Paragraph No. 20 of the said judgment that vicarious liability is attracted when the offence is committed with the consent, connivance or is

¶16

2 Cr.M.P. No. 770 of 2026

¶17

(2026:JHHC:9485)

¶18

attributable to the neglect on the part of Director, Manager, Secretary or other officers of the company and in that case with similar facts as of this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed thus in Paragraph No. 21, which reads as under:-

¶19

“21. In the factual context present before us it is crystal clear that the complaint does not satisfy the mandate of sub-section (1) to Section 22-C of the Act as there are no assertions or averments that the appellant before this Court was in-charge of and responsible to the company M/s Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. in the manner as interpreted by this Court in the cases mentioned above. The proviso to sub-section (1) in the present case would not apply. It is an exception that would be applicable and come into operation only when the conditions of sub-section (1) to Section 22-C are satisfied. Notably, in the absence of any specific averment, the prosecution in the present case does not and cannot rely on Section 22-C(2) of the Act.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶20

5. It is next submitted that in this case also, the complaint does not satisfy the mandate of Section 29(1) of the Payment of Bonus Act, as there are no assertions or averments that the petitioner was in-charge of and responsible to the company being State Bank of India, in the manner as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dayle De’ Souza Vs. Government of India (supra) and in this case also, in the absence of any specific averments to the effect that the petitioner was incharge of and responsible to the company, the prosecution against the petitioner, being not sustainable in law, the summoning order is liable to be quashed. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶21

6. Learned CGC on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned

¶22

3 Cr.M.P. No. 770 of 2026

¶23

(2026:JHHC:9485)

¶24

order passed by the learned CJM, I/C, Giridih. Hence, it is submitted that Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶25

7. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dayle De’ Souza Vs. Government of India (supra) has taken note of the judgments of that Court indicating that in order to make the person vicariously liable for the company it has to be specifically averred that such person was the in charge of the company and was responsible to company for the conduct of the business of the company. Now coming to the facts of the case as in the complaint of this case the complainant has not made any averment that the petitioner was the in charge of the company and was responsible to company for the conduct of the business of the company, namely State Bank of India. The complainant having not done so, this court has no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Section 29 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, cannot be pressed into service to implicate the petitioner in this case.

¶26

8. Hence, in absence of the specific averments to this effect, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this proceeding against the petitioner will amount to an abuse to the process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶27

¶28

Cr.M.P. No. 770 of 2026

¶29